Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Vodafone Essar Ltd vs. Dispute Resolution Panel (Delhi High Court)

Vodafone Essar Ltd vs. Dispute Resolution Panel (Delhi High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 27, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (vodafone_DRP.pdf)


DRP must give “cogent and germane reasons” in support of s. 144C directions

The assessee filed a Writ Petition to challenge the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on the ground, inter alia, that the DRP had not given any reasons in support of its directions to the AO. Before the High Court, the DRP conceded that its order “deserved to be quashed”. HELD quashing the DRP’s order:

When a quasi judicial authority (like the DRP) deals with a lis, it is obligatory on its part to ascribe cogent and germane reasons as the same is the heart and soul of the matter. And further, the same also facilitates appreciation when the order is called in question before the superior forum.

See Also: GAP International Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) (DRP must not pass “laconic” orders but must deal with assessee’s objections) & AIA Engineering vs. DRP (Guj HC)

Related Posts:

  • Essar Shipping Limited vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Conceptually, “loan” and “subsidy” are two different concepts. As per the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Indian Edition, the term “loan” has been explained as a thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest; the action of lending. Black’s Law Dictionary,…
  • Vodafone Idea Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) In the premises, we hold that in respect of Assessment Years ending on 31st March 2017 or before, if a notice was issued in conformity with the requirements stated in sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act, it shall not be necessary to process the refund under subsection (1)…
  • Bently Nevada LLC vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) The Court accordingly finds that in the present case the impugned withholding certificate which directs TDS to be deducted at 5% on the payments made by the Indian entities to the Petitioner is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it is not based on valid reasons and is contrary to the…
  • PCIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) The transactions in question were clearly sham and make-believe with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is clearly superficial and adopts a perfunctory approach and ignores evidence and material referred to in the assessment order. The reasoning given is contrary to…
  • Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) If the nature of services rendered have a proximate nexus with the extraction of production of mineral oils, it would be outside the ambit of the definition of FTS. In the instant case, since the nature of services rendered by the Petitioner gets excluded from the definition of “FTS”, in…
  • Puneet Sharma vs. UOI (Delhi High Court) Considering the above provisions, guidelines, status of applications and on perusal of list of candidates in decreasing order of their experience, the interim Search-cum-Selection Committee decided to call 24 most experienced applicants who were practicing Advocates for interview. The above-mentioned principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in catena…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court) 

    Receipt for agreeing to refrain from carrying on a competing business under a restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is not chargeable to tax either as a revenue receipt or as a capital gain as ss. 28(va) and 55(2)(a) … CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court)…
  2. Aatur Holdings (Bombay High Court) 

    (1) Though the assessee company was the defacto owner of the shares, the dividends could not be said to have accrued to it as it was not the dejure owner of the shares. (2) If there is an accounting standard (AS-9), the same has to be accepted in the…
  3. CIT vs. Siemens AG (Bombay High Court) 

    Amounts received towards reimbursement of expenses can, under no circumstances, be regarded as a revenue Receipt and is not chargeable to income-tax;Read more ›
  4. P. C. Jain vs. UOI (Delhi High Court) 

    Disqualification of Ex-Members practicing before CESTAT is constitutional Read more ›
  5. CIT vs. Bonanza Portfolio (Delhi High Court) 

    Since the brokerage payable by the client to the broker was a part of the debt and that debt had been taken into account in computing the income, the conditions of s. 36 (2) (i) read with s. 36 (1) (viii) were satisfied and the bad debt was allowable…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*